1. Approval of Agenda and Minutes

April 2012 Meeting minutes – Provisionally approved, final approval postponed for a day. [Minutes were finalized and
approved, with minor comments from committee members on June 5th and distributed via the RUL listserve June 6th.]

Agenda approved.

2. Communicating about Open Access/OA Policy; Next steps Following Presentations. (Mullen, Otto, Glazer)

Now that the RU Open Access Policy has been presented to various stakeholder groups (see April minutes), there is concern
about how the proposed policy and other news about open access at Rutgers is and will be communicated. We want all
discussions to be based on accurate information; incorrect information may become an obstacle to approval of the policy and
implementation. One reason for concern is that early drafts of the proposed Open Access Policy have been appearing on the
Internet (apparently because of links sent out by some of the presentation audiences that were picked up by other groups.)
We need to develop a communications strategy to support proposed adoption of the Open Access policy. CSC will work with
Glazer going forward on news items.

(a) Rutgers Senate web page (Otto & Mullen):

This page will be basic and will contain three key documents: the generic PowerPoint presentation, the 1-page fact sheet
(handout), and the report developed by the OA Subcommittee. The 1-page document has been revised and polished as a result of
the presentations by Otto and Mullen to various groups.

The consensus is to redo the RUL scholarly communication web pages; we need to replace the Harvard boilerplate language of
the draft policy, and update other items. First step is a shell page, which Jane volunteered to prepare in a week. The
information on the one page handout will be used as the base page, with links to the PowerPoint and other resources.

There is a question as to whether the proposed policy should be posted prior to the Senate vote, which is scheduled for
October. Tom thinks this is a good idea; it would promote constructive discussion.

Other decisions:

Leave the CSC page under "Faculty Services" on the RUL web site.

Retain the title Scholarly Communication and Open Access: Research and Publication in Flux.

(c) RUcore Brochure: Do we need to review the RUcore brochure? Should we provide a link to it from our page? It discusses
the benefits of open access. Should we provide a PDF of this brochure from the website?

Discussion with Harry Glazer about a news article describing the Open Access initiative/mandate. It could be in editorial
style, placing the Rutgers initiative within the context of what other universities are doing. The focus should be on the
benefits of open access, avoiding pothole areas, such as opposition from publishers. Possible headline: Open Access Takes a
Step at Rutgers. Should this be published before the vote? Consensus is yes. CSC members will work with Harry going forward
on any news.

Another question is whether the CSC should be disseminating news from the academic and publishing communities, such as the
recent White House petition, legal updates, publisher announcements, academic policies, etc. Janice sends out e-mails about
significant news on copyright issues; she doesn’t want to send out everything, it would be overwhelming. Some committee
members see this as a function of the committee. Laura reports interest from the RUL community. News could be disseminated
through the new RUL blog or our own blog. Or, we could develop a list of major news resources (blogs, e-newsletters, etc.)
and post them on our web site.

3. Open Access Week 2012. (Mullen)

October 22–28, 2012 will be Open Access Week. Put it on your calendar!

Laura proposes a panel with possible representatives from Princeton, Rutgers and one or two more organizations to be named
at a later date. She applied for funds from the "Technologies Without Borders" program administered by the Centers for
Global Advancement and International Affairs; year two of this biennial program will focus on the sub-theme of Citizenship
and Social Responsibility. (Small grants of up to $700 were available; the proposal deadline was May 25th. The money would
be for refreshments/reception and possibly giveaways from SPARC.) If the proposal is accepted, we will need to flesh it out.
Suggestions for panelists include editors of RUL OA journals, and a commercial OA publisher as well.

Open access and peer review could also be incorporated into the program. This would be in response to SCI’s request that we
work with them on a peer review program.

Tom asked which of the appointed members of the Committee would be serving next year. Bob announced that he will have a
different status next year, doing research, and so will not be serving. Bob has been on the Committee on Scholarly
Communication since its inception in 2007, co-chairing it for much of that time. Everyone present applauded his work and
thanked him for his service.

ALA: Janice will be attending and will report on significant copyright events and news. Laura will be attending the SPARC
(Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) Forum, and will report.

SPARC Open Access Petition ((http://bit.ly/MB4NOV): This online petition to the White House for "free access over the
Internet to scientific journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research" reached its goal of 25,000 signatures, and so
will automatically go to President Obama. (As of June 12, the sponsors are still requesting signatures).

Update on the RUL Pilot, faculty deposit program. 13 faculty have deposited and there have been lots of enhancements as a
result. Jane and Laura will report to the RUL faculty at the June 15th meeting on the results of the pilot thus far, as well
as give a report on the status of the open access policy work. More deposits are very welcome.